Thank you! That two ball movmenet was way over my head a few moments ago..now I get it! ..I now want to create a Newton Cradle using ridged 'lines' and bearings for a more efficient machine.
Thanks for the great video, answered some questions that popped into my head today! Also fun watching resonances build up in the higher-momentum examples with 2 and 3 balls, and fascinating to see periodic phasing take place due to the different pendulum lengths
Curious.. What is the basis for your statetement that there are series of collision? Is it based on observations? Or can that statement be derived from fundemental physical laws? Or is it an hypothesis supported by by observations?
Very interesting, excellent, and helpful video! Thank you. So anyways I found this vid because I've been puzzling over why most of the possible results are not observed. Particularly I was pondering how when you drop two balls do you see two balls rebound on the other side? Why not one with twice the velocity? I was confused because before this all I had been told was that alone conservation of kinetic energy and momentum explained the whole game.... But your explanation of discrete collisions seems like a much better model. I wonder if you could solder the first two balls into one object that should ensure the collision happens just once and there would be one ball flying out the other side with twice the velocity right?
jonni2 if the two balls collided at the exact same time then I think it’s possible. But to be able to do that would take some insane precision and other stuff so I don’t think it’s possible. But hey, if you manage to pull off something awesome like that, it would actually amaze me.
hi there. i know this video is a bit old. i just got one of these toys and mine wont even go more then 15 seconds. is this correct? i thought once you move the ball it would just go for a long time.
This demonstration ignores the part that potential energy plays in Newton's Cradle. It is transformed to kinetic energy based on a formula that calculus can explain. Important thing here is energy is converted from one state to another based on position, motion, gravity, etc.
I am worried about my newton's cradle it only goes for about a minute and I brought it from a museum so its perfect but just doesn't last help me please?
LOL ...well first we need to design a ball that will perfectly recoil with out generating heat or sound (impossible) then we need a vacuum deeper than space to eliminate any energy lost from the cradle knocking around the surrounding atmosphere (less impossible)
so cool.. my child wants one.. I couldn't remember what to call it and said you know the pendulum thingy at the store.. sorry I'm goofy.. anyway thank for explaining this.. it is very interesting indeed
If i double the mass of the ball, just the one more to the right, and release, i will not have two balls coming out in the other side? One hit one ball?
Hi when you swung two balls in the opposite direction I could not understand the phenomenon . Shouldnt the momentum from both the balls cancel each other or as i assume since it is a elastic colllision the momentum is continuously transferred back to the swung balls instead of cancelling each other
Following on from that hypothesis, if the first ball had twice the mass (same diameter), then there shouldn't be two balls moving at the far end as there is only one collision, meaning that the end ball would move off at twice the velocity that the first (double mass) ball moved in with. I'd love to see this tested. Maybe the @SloMoGuys could do something on this?
I think thats mostly wrong. What travels through the balls is a compression wave with an intensity and duration. If you had two balls welded together, you would get two balls at the end. If you had a double mass ball made of uranium, same volume. Then the last ball would be catapulted twice as fast
Thank you for this great explanation. I had never understood how the balls at the ends knew whether 1 ball or 2 balls were hitting. Now I know. But I do have a question. What if the 2 balls making the hit were welded together (or was one ball with twice the mass). My first thought was that one ball would move at twice the speed. This would conserve momentum mv. However, to conserve kinetic energy, 1/2mv^2, the last ball would have to move at 1.41 the speed. My thought therefore is that more then one ball would need to move at different speeds such that both both the momentum and kinetic energy would be conserved. Do you agree and would you be able to perform this experiment?
Hello, I'm Davira. I hope you can reply to this comment I think this video is amazing, I want to ask permission to use this video for my undergraduate thesis I made a book with additional videos that can be accessed through an application, this video will be included in my application that I made I will still include your channel thanks for your attention
So what if you lift 3 balls on one side, then two on the other? What would happen to the ball in the middle? Would it alternate between which direction it went?
Thejus Mahajan well, if you doubled the mass of he first ball (I’m assuming that’s what you mean) then one ball on the end would be released at roughly twice the velocity because there is only one collision, but momentum needs to be conserved and because the mass of each of the balls stays constant, he only that can change is the velocity of the ball.
Great sir thanks very much for explanation .. alas it was little difficult for me to understand becz I am Indian and I am not familiar with ur accent...
If the reason is the series of impacts one after the other that causes two Bob's to move, then glueing the two together should cause only one to move on?
If the 2 outer balls are glued together, my prediction is that only one ball will move at the other side, with double the velocity. Is this correct ? Ps: thanks for the nice video, good job :)
***** sorry i misunderstood your original question. you're asking if one of the balls was say, twice the mass, and you set it swinging, what would happen to the ball on the end? i think it would have a larger velocity because the input force has greater momentum.
Very well explained. One ball can only displace one ball, 2 balls displace 2 balls, and 3 balls displace 3 balls by displacing the middle one twice. I use a video of this to explain why the official 9/11 report is a lie. 22 falling floors can only displace 22 floors, not the whole building. In order to use the energy from 22 falling floors to collapse the whole building it is necessary to weaken the structure by severing the upright support girders.
From one armchair physicist to another, nice video :) I want to make something like this but with a deformed surface (and perhaps realtime powered electromagnets) to emulate gravity on steel spheres - I have seven pinball machines so my fascination with steel sphere physics has probably gotten a little excessive ;)
@@paintingoftheweek This is not an issue of friction, it’s an issue of gravity because friction is about the force resisting the relative motion of solid surfaces, fluid layers, and material elements sliding against each other. There are several types of friction: Dry friction is a force that opposes the relative lateral motion of two solid surfaces in contact. Even in a 100% vacuum with zero % friction, Newton’s cradle would still come to a pretty quick stop because gravity is Is the enemy here. Gravity is at work here. I’m impressed. You have posted nothing in five years yet you’re still hanging around answering peoples questions and responding to comments. That’s pretty cool indeed.
This is wrong, what if you glue 2 balls, they wont hit at different times, and you still get two balls lift on the other end. Indeed you need to explain it with the natural modes of frecuency of the system, watch "the action lab" video.
No me he fijado que en el día de ayer me he ido de aquí al mediodía a la casa y ya me he dormiré en el hospital de la escuela a ver las dos o tres a comer o algo para que se vaya bien bien pues aquí
Great video for those new to learning a newton's cradle. However, you're clearly not educated enough for explaining this. An example is when you said "more or less", scientists measure with absolutes. I enjoyed your simplistic demonstration and your verbage of this instrument nonetheless :)
